Wikipedia

Talk:Western Sahara/Archive 6

< Talk:Western Sahara
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Thewolfchild in topic "2,016" instead of 2016
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Phosphate mining

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article currently says that phosphate mining in the WS is economically unviable and is sourced to a US cable. This is wrong AFAICT - e.g. this in Business Week says "Western Sahara is ... where Morocco's best phosphate lies." and that "because the rock there [ Bou Craa ] is of the highest quality in the country, the mine produces 11 percent of the country's total output". The whole economy section in general seems a bit off tbh - why would Morocco be so interested if it costing them so much? SmartSE (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I read in a piece of Polisario propaganda that phosphate extraction nets Morocco half a billion Euros a year, so clearly they think it's significant. I might try and find a source for their claim if it's true, or a more accurate number if it's not. Unless someone else knows?
In any case, being economically unviable should be removed, since it's unsourced and probably untrue. --RaphaelBriand (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Which variant of English?

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Recently, Ebe123 changed some text in the article from British to American English while doing some clean-up. I've no problem, of course, with the clean-up or his/her work but... it struck me that the article would - based on the subject matter - be more appropriate in British English. As such, I've reverted Ebe123's language changes for now and opened this discussion. (Again, no prejudice whatsoever intended against Ebe123's work, and if the consensus/appropriate choice is AmEng, so be it.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 08:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

English variations Why would this be more appropriate for British English? When there isn't a strong cultural reason for an English variation, per WP:ENGVAR, it's up to the original main editor or the prevailing standard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, from what I can find, there seems to be a preference for BrEng in Europe and Africa. Looking at the article history, spot checks in 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2011 show the use of British English. --Ckatzchatspy 19:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I changed it to American English as there was an inconsistency of the two variations. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I added a POV template for the following reasons:

  • In the section "Dispute", it shows a gallery of pictures showing pro-Polisario manifestations, but none for pro-Morocco ones (as if they did never happen [1]) ;
  • It shows a picture of "the commemoration of SADR's independence", which isn't appropriated for this article but for SADR's one ;
  • It shows a map of countries "supporting the right of self-determination" as if they were supporting Polisario's claims (these last ones consist in a referendum, while "self-determination" doesn't exclusively consist on it).

Omar-Toons (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Response
  • I think it is fitting and appropriate to mention pro-occupation events and if there are freely-licensed media of them, I encourage you to add them.
  • This is appropriate as it's about Sahrawi culture and it's a cultural institution. Western Sahara is populated by Sahrawi people and the UN recognizes the Polisario Front as their legitimate representative.
  • If you think the caption should be changed, then please do. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to Koavf

  • Western sahara is not an occupied territory but a disputed one, according to UN morocco is claiming and controling 80% territory, (no mention of occupation)
  • You can find and insert neutral apolitical pictures of sahrawi culture
  • those maps are already inserted in the article legal status of western sahara why are you inserting them again in this article? + why don't you insert a map of countries which support the moroccan autonomy plan?", you're adds are definitely violating the principle of neutrality .

--Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Response
  • This is not true—the UN has called for Morocco to end their occupation of Western Sahara on multiple occasions.
  • That's true and it's fine, but their culture has been dominated by this political dispute as well; there is nothing wrong (and everything right) with displaying that.
  • I'd be fine with including a map like that as long as it's accurate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to Koavf

*Can you give me a UN resolution which consider morocco as a occupier country? UN calls for referendum but not an end of occupation (we can't speak about occupation of a territoriy which has never been a sovereign country)
*you're wrong, saharaui culture has nothing to do with politics, people of sahara exists many centuries before creation of Polisario, displaying RASD flags or moroccan flags is a violation of the principle of neutrality
*I'm afraid that the article becomes a map war, so I prefer that those maps should be removed because they exist already in the article "legal status of western sahara"

--Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

  • UN resolution - UN General Assembly resolution 34/37 - "5. Deeply deplores the aggravation of the situation resulting from the continued occupation of Western Sahara by Morocco and the extension of that occupation to the territory recently evacuated by Mauritania;"
  • Also see "The International Law of Occupation", Eyal Benvenisti, section "7.2.2, The Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara (1975)", Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199588893
  • "we can't speak about occupation of a territory which has never been a sovereign country" - sure we can because we must reflect the sources according to NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Exactly As Sean pointed out, the UN have called the Moroccan occupation just that--an occupation. By your reasoning, Palestine was never occupied by Israel. Also, since the UN have called the Polisario Front the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people, your claim that "saharaui culture has nothing to do with politics" is demonstrably untrue as well. You could verify these with Google, just like you could have at Human rights in Western Sahara regarding Morocco bombing innocent civilians with napalm and white phosphorous. It makes it difficult to assume good faith when you're willfully ignorant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to Koavf

Please avoid personal attacks and presume good faith.
you've brought me a very old resolution of UN (1979 : the beginning of the conflict), the meaning of the word occupation depends in the context, invading a territory with military troops is an occupation regardless to who belong the territory, in recent resolutions UN is no more mentionning morocco as a occupier country, UN consider the territory of WS as disputed (not occupied), and call the parties to achieve a mutual and political solution in order to organize a referendum
sahraui people have immigrated to WS for many centuries, we can not link many centuries of culture to a recent event, putting RASD flags in article is clearly a propaganda, should we insert moroccan, mauritanian and algerian flags to represent saharawi people who lives in morocco, mauritania and algeria? + The polisario front is the legitimate represntant of sahrawi people doesn't mean that western sahara = RASD, those terms don't have the same meaning and you should stop inserting propaganda pictures of independence manifestations and RASD flags.
Puting in wikipedia that morocco is responsible for aerian bombardments with napalm and white phosphorus require a solid and reliable sources (UN, Amnesty), spanish newspapers or ARSO (the agency of polisario) are not reliable.

Thanks --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right that personal attacks are unhelpful but so are evidence-less assertions by editors. I prefer to ignore both. You asked for evidence. I provided it. It can be described as an occupation because it is regarded as an occupation by notable sources. This is not a negotiable point, it is just how it is, and we are required to deal with the actual evidence that exists in a reasonable sample of reliable sources according to policy to ensure NPOV compliance. Simply presenting one narrative as fact is not good enough. You need to bring evidence in the form of reliable sources to support your statements. You haven't done that. Statements made here without evidence don't have any value and must be excluded from any content decisions. Also, in my experience it's much better to avoid making arguments from first principals based on a personal opinion about what words mean. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

None neutral expressions and pictures

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've replaced the word "liberated territories" by "polisario held territories", UN do not recognize RASD sovereignty over western sahara, then the term "liberated" is not neutral I've also removed a gallery showing a pro-independence manifestation and RASD flags, because the article is about western sahara not about RASD and must be neutral, these gallery can be inserted in RASD article. [2] --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is totally neutral for non marrocan users. Move on. Your userpage is not helping your claim. - Dzlinker (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

there is no mention of my nationality in my userpage, please avoid personal attacks, read this WP:PA--Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that you're going to do the same with the term "southern provinces", wich is clearly non neutral, apart from illegal (its so similar to call the West Bank Judea and Samaria, one more parallel between Israel and Morocco...).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Common, who wrote the introduction to this? The intro is wayyy to long and it is practicaly the history of western sahara. Someone please put that information somewhere else. The introduction has to be like this:

"Western sahara is a territory... in africa...... that is controlled/governed by...."

Nothing else. The rest has to be put somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.215.35 (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Occupied or Disputed?

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Somebody want to discuss instead of edit-waring? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Occupied The territory is occupied and reliable sources say as much. I don't see why this is problematic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but since it is not widely recognized as an "occupied" territory the use of this expression is POV. Nobody can deny the fact that Western Sahara is a disputed territory, but only one side of the conflict claims that it is occupied then describing the territory as claimed by one belligerent isn't WP:NPOV. The word that has to be used is "disputed". --Omar-toons (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you have evidence in the form of reliable sources to support the assertion that "it is not widely recognized as an "occupied" territory" ? The statement "only one side of the conflict claims that it is occupied" is patently false as can be seen from the sources in the section above. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry? The UN has called it occupied multiple times--you simply don't know what you're talking about. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I've followed a link from talk. Would have to agree with Omar-toons here. I have not seen sources for UN position, but assume Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ is correct. UN opinion is pretty notable, though their opinion can not be used for a fact statement and has to be attributed, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Without attribution disputed could be used. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
See the sources in Talk:Western_Sahara#Lack_of_neutrality above. Given that Omar-toons' statement contained no evidence it doesn't really matter whether anyone agrees with it from a policy perspective. It might be true that "it is not widely recognized as an "occupied" territory". I have no idea actually but the answer will be in the reliable sources rather than our opinions about words. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Occupied Clearly, as Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ had exposed, UN had called Moroccan presence in Western Sahara occupation at least 2 times.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC to come...

Hello,

Following a discussion on Talk:Aminatou Haidar#POV template added where we discussed this issue, I would like to inform you that I have the intention to ask for a global RfC regarding the "occupied/controlled/disputed/annexed" status of the territory.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The western Sahara is part of Morocco cuz before it was occupied by Spain it was part of Morocco and Moroccan people who freed it from Spanish control . 

Hatimkingoffootball (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Demotix is not RS

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This does not qualify as RS according to WP guidelines- cites associated with it will be deleted.Parkwells (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Atlantic coastline

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The lead of this article says the entire Atlantic coastline of Western Sahara is controlled by Morocco. However, maps such as File:Flags of Morocco and the SADR over Western Sahara map.png, for example, show that the Sahrawi-controlled area does have a small coastline at the southern part of the territory. Which is right? SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of Polisario Front controlling a southern strip. On the map you mention, this looks like a graphic mistake, but is quite clearly seen here: [3]. I don't think this is correct, though. Morocco claims as southernmost point of its territory La Güera, near the southern tip of Ras_Nouadhibou peninsula, and the WP entry about La Güera describes it as a ghost town, but under Moroccan control. From the military viewpoint it's hard to see how Polisario could keep a position there. Any better source welcome, of course.Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Correcting my former comment: The Polisario does control in fact a southern strip along the border of Mauritania, and did show so last december, even sending Brahim Gali there, and handing out a picture with the sea in the background. Details are here: El Confidencial. So the maps are correct and it is not a graphic mistake. Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Opening is a little confusing

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The wording of the opening is a bit misleading. The text "Occupied by Spain since the late 19th century, the Western Sahara has been on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories since 1963 after a Moroccan demand" strongly implies that Spain is still ruling the territory. 94.6.182.172 (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Corrected ("occupied in the late 19th century") Ilyacadiz (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Additions to Culture Section

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm a Georgetown University graduate student, dedicating much of my research to the Western Sahara territory. I would like to make many additions to the "Culture" section of the Western Sahara page, including gender relations, cross-cultural influence, art, and traditional women's dress relating to how it has been considered a symbol of resistance. Please let me know if you have any comments, questions, or concerns. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ev160 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Remember that anything included needs to come from WP:Reliable sources. Regards, CMD (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"As of 2006"

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The main article says "As of 2006, no other member state of the United Nations has recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara." do we have a more up to date reference? Gavinio (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Western Sahara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Moroccann (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  Note: No request was made. See WP:EDITREQ for assistance. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Western Sahara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources to add

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Note to self. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

adding the article to the category of divided regions 87.5.180.71 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  Already done The article is already in a subcategory of the category you are requesting, and therefore, has already been added. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Western Sahara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the third paragraph of the lead, please change the word "berm" to "Moroccan Western Sahara Wall" i.e., "the only part of the coast outside the Moroccan Western Sahara Wall is the extreme south". The word "berm" has no context and therefore no meaning to the new reader. 95.44.50.222 (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done Uglemat (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not western Sahara this is Moroccan Sahara and it's not occupied.

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Western Sahara is occupied by morocco. It is part of Morocco. When it was under Spanish control Moroccan people who free it Hatimkingoffootball (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hatimkingoffootball: There are many reasons the article is worded that way, most of which are described in the article itself. This talk page and its archives also indicates much prior discussion on this point. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Hatimkingoffootball: You couldn't be more wrong and there are sources which contradict you. Provide a source for your claims, please. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change "Morocco has won recognition or support for its position from several African governments and from most of the Muslim World and Arab League" to "Morocco has won support for its position from several African governments and most of the Muslim world and the Arab League."

[No country has recognized Morocco's claim, so "recognize" is the wrong word. And there is pressure on them not to do so under UN rules. The Arab League didn't recognize either, it just said it supports Morocco's position (responding to strong lobbying from Morocco.)]

[Your own page on political status of Western Sahara states correctly. "Although no state has formally recognised Moroccan sovereignty on Western Sahara, some states are supportive of the "right of self-determination", including the option of autonomy under Morocco sovereignty." So "recognize" is a misleading term in the sentence that needs to be changed.] Lawrencewa (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done  — Ammarpad (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Western Sahara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Country or Region

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey somebody, Western Sahara country or region? OktaRama2010 (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this is an region, and sovereign state is an   Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, not   Western Sahara. OktaRama2010 (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"2,016" instead of 2016

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the infobox at the top, it says "2,016" instead of 2016 next to the population estimate. Funnyhat (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_Sahara/Archive_6&oldid=1083350840"